the admissibility requirement under Rule 40(5)15 is not met so that the Application should be declared inadmissible and be dismissed. * 39. The Applicant disputes the Respondent State’s objection and claims that he exhausted all available remedies as his case was heard by the Court of Appeal, which is the court of last resort of the Respondent State, and that judgment was delivered on 23 February 2016. The Applicant also notes that this Court has held on numerous occasions that an Applicant is only required to exhaust ordinary judicial remedies and that an application for review or a constitutional petition, within the Respondent State’s legal system, are extra-ordinary remedies that an Applicant is not required to exhaust prior to seizing this Court. Therefore, the Applicant prays the Court to dismiss the Respondent State’s objection and find that this matter has been filed before this Court after the exhaustion of local remedies. *** 40. The Court notes that pursuant to Article 56(5) of the Charter, whose provisions are restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, any application filed before it shall fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. The rule of exhaustion of local remedies aims at providing States the opportunity to deal with human rights violations within their jurisdictions before an international human rights body is called upon to determine the State’s responsibility for the same.16 41. The Court recalls its position where it held that, in so far as the criminal proceedings against an applicant have been determined by the highest appellate court, the Respondent State will be deemed to have had the 15 Corresponding to Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules of 25 September 2020. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9, §§ 93-94. 16 13